RFC 3986 s 7.5 contnd: "A password appearing within the userinfo component is deprecated and should be considered an error (or simply ignored) except in those rare cases where the 'password' parameter is intended to be public."
-
-
So as per the RFCs, if you put a password in a URL, it's because you intend it to be public. So curl's behavior is fine. (Curl has command line arguments for specifying non-public usernames and passwords.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mathew
I'm sorry, when did we go from "logged in your browser history" to "public"? Your argument is bullshit. You're saying that just because a particular thing has some (known) security caveats it's fine to gratuitously introduce more undiscoverable ones to bite people in the ass.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @marcan42
Sorry, but ultimately it comes down to this: curl is following the RFCs, and you are not.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mathew
Sometimes the RFCs are bullshit. If people followed the RFCs to the letter anyone could DoS any server, because they require vulnerable implementations of things like TCP. This is one of those times.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
There is a huge gap between "I'm deliberately putting a password in URIs so I can paste them in a command line in the privacy of my home" to "hey browser please attach my password invisibly to every file I download so I can unknowingly hand it to someone in a USB stick"
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @marcan42
That's why I think RFC1738 was better than the later revisions. Username and password in HTTP URLs should simply not be allowed, because it's such a source of security risks.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mathew
But they *are* allowed, and *while* they're allowed, gratuitously putting them into xattrs is utterly stupid. Actually putting URLs into xattrs at all by default is utterly stupid, because URLs often contain other kinds of credentials, plus it's just leaking personal info.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @marcan42
URLs shouldn't contain other kinds of credentials or personal info. As a web developer you learn never to submit anything confidential as part of the URL; always as body payload.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mathew
Tell that to half of the big internet companies who use signed URIs, e.g. I can copy the URI to a private photo in Google Photos and fetch it without any cookies and without sharing by URI enabled. There are perfectly good engineering reasons to do stuff like this.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
And my point is I may not even want you to *know* what URI I downloaded something from! The mere association of a public URI with a file is a personal information leak! Why should you know where I got a file from?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.